From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #15383 Reply-To: ammf@fruvous.com Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Saturday, January 18 2025 Volume 14 : Number 15383 Today's Subjects: ----------------- A Natural Way to Shrink Your Prostate ["Healthier Prostate" Subject: A Natural Way to Shrink Your Prostate A Natural Way to Shrink Your Prostate http://neurofix.shop/fw09tR5lEmioAyvPMaeMOl4bbfticyz2clHdZ37aH-e53J8ZtA http://neurofix.shop/B27ezhSLC3x2GIckv64DaCUhj67DcxZ3NJpHWXM0O-YruYpkAw ad in an earlier decision of Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd decided that when one party in a legal dispute wanted to change their formal written arguments (called pleadings), the most important thing was to ensure fairness and justice between the parties involved. The High Court ruled such changes should mostly be permitted provided they helped the case to reach the correct outcome, provided the other side was compensated for inconvenience through the payment of their costs.: This approach mostly disregarded any concerns about how such changes could delay a case or affect the court system more generally. It meant parties could usually delay in making changes, resulting in significant delays and higher costs. Courts did not have the power to reject most requests, despite the potential for disruption or waste of court time. The decision effectively allowed participants in a legal proceeding to amend their pleadings as desired, encouraging parties to delay raising claims or issues with the intent of amending their pleadings without consequence. This caused delays courts struggled to manage, leading to inefficiency, increased court costs, a strain on court resources, and eventually, increased criticism. Justice Raymond Finkelstein of the Federal Court of Australia felt JL Holdings had been applied in too many cases where payin ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 17:23:45 +0100 From: "Home Oasis" Subject: How a Ranger is Farming Water Efficiently How a Ranger is Farming Water Efficiently http://financiallock.click/NeJpKADHlKfW-Wed8oMtKZCVuH6yQJkJxW0wyv7zyErUBq3OFw http://financiallock.click/lX7wfm8Tn5g5-BPtGi1xWUZp_vMCxjxcjycsNb08fv1Ddz9k4w shfire destroyed property and equipment at Australian National University's (ANU) Mount Stromlo campus near Canberra. ANU was insured by three companies: Chubb, CGU, and ACE. The insurance policies had been placed by the broker Aon Risk Services. ANU lodged a claim for property damage. This claim was disputed by its three insurers on various grounds, though they each agreed ANU had failed to take insurance out on a cohort of buildings referred to as the "Property Not Insured List" (PNI list). ANU brought a suit against the insurers, later adding Aon to the suit alleging it had negligently failed to advise the insurers of the property on the PNI list. ANU also disputed the value of its assets, whereas the insurers argued the values were under-declared. On the first day of what was scheduled to be a four-week trial in the ACT Supreme Court, ANU had already settled with one insurer and commenced mediation with the remaining two, with which it settled two days later. ANU then sought an adjournment to add a new claim against Aon, for breach of contract and breach of duty of care. This was granted by Justice Gray on the grounds the amendments raised arguable issues. Aon appealed this decision and argued such amendments caused delay and did not abide by the principles of case manage ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V14 #15383 ***********************************************